Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 10:58:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Ayaan Hirsi Ali was on This Week (ABC) a few minutes ago, and Martha Raddatz was more or less incredibly rude to her. Granted, being rude is sort of the nature of how Martha Raddatz reports, but more or less Rattatz cut her off, interrupted her, talked over her and was extremely combative, and should not have taken George S.'s place this week.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 11:24:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 10:58:43 AM, YYW wrote:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali was on This Week (ABC) a few minutes ago, and Martha Raddatz was more or less incredibly rude to her. Granted, being rude is sort of the nature of how Martha Raddatz reports, but more or less Rattatz cut her off, interrupted her, talked over her and was extremely combative, and should not have taken George S.'s place this week.

I think the more important message was the inability of Muslims to critique their own religion without being labelled apostates/heretics, etc. It is this mind-trap which is intellectually harmful, and sadly, self-enforcing and conveys an evolutionary advantage to the religion. A religion where people believe they they are unable to question their beliefs on some level is naturally going to be more resilient, which is not a good thing for intellectual honesty.
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 11:26:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 11:24:10 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/22/2015 10:58:43 AM, YYW wrote:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali was on This Week (ABC) a few minutes ago, and Martha Raddatz was more or less incredibly rude to her. Granted, being rude is sort of the nature of how Martha Raddatz reports, but more or less Rattatz cut her off, interrupted her, talked over her and was extremely combative, and should not have taken George S.'s place this week.

I think the more important message was the inability of Muslims to critique their own religion without being labelled apostates/heretics, etc. It is this mind-trap which is intellectually harmful, and sadly, self-enforcing and conveys an evolutionary advantage to the religion. A religion where people believe they they are unable to question their beliefs on some level is naturally going to be more resilient, which is not a good thing for intellectual honesty.

I think you and Ali would be agreement in that regard; I would be too.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 11:31:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 11:26:32 AM, YYW wrote:
At 3/22/2015 11:24:10 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/22/2015 10:58:43 AM, YYW wrote:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali was on This Week (ABC) a few minutes ago, and Martha Raddatz was more or less incredibly rude to her. Granted, being rude is sort of the nature of how Martha Raddatz reports, but more or less Rattatz cut her off, interrupted her, talked over her and was extremely combative, and should not have taken George S.'s place this week.

I think the more important message was the inability of Muslims to critique their own religion without being labelled apostates/heretics, etc. It is this mind-trap which is intellectually harmful, and sadly, self-enforcing and conveys an evolutionary advantage to the religion. A religion where people believe they they are unable to question their beliefs on some level is naturally going to be more resilient, which is not a good thing for intellectual honesty.

I think you and Ali would be agreement in that regard; I would be too.

Btw, I couldnt find the video you are talking about, I am basing it off of this video:

https://www.youtube.com...

Where I didn't really think she was being interrupted any more than we would reasonable expect from a 5 minute dual interview.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 11:33:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 10:58:43 AM, YYW wrote:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali was on This Week (ABC) a few minutes ago, and Martha Raddatz was more or less incredibly rude to her. Granted, being rude is sort of the nature of how Martha Raddatz reports, but more or less Rattatz cut her off, interrupted her, talked over her and was extremely combative, and should not have taken George S.'s place this week.

Just watched it. I'm not a big fan of Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Salman Rushdie is, I think, much more on point and subtle in his critique of certain cultural outlooks in the Middle East), but I went into that interview wanting to hear her viewpoint, and above all else to hear a dialogue with Omar. Instead I got Martha Raddatz bloviating every time anyone said something, which was just aggravating. Sit down and shut up.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 11:38:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 11:24:10 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/22/2015 10:58:43 AM, YYW wrote:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali was on This Week (ABC) a few minutes ago, and Martha Raddatz was more or less incredibly rude to her. Granted, being rude is sort of the nature of how Martha Raddatz reports, but more or less Rattatz cut her off, interrupted her, talked over her and was extremely combative, and should not have taken George S.'s place this week.

I think the more important message was the inability of Muslims to critique their own religion without being labelled apostates/heretics, etc. It is this mind-trap which is intellectually harmful, and sadly, self-enforcing and conveys an evolutionary advantage to the religion. A religion where people believe they they are unable to question their beliefs on some level is naturally going to be more resilient, which is not a good thing for intellectual honesty.

My problem with Ali is that she portrays Islam as always being this way, but it's actually explicitly forbidden to declare any Muslim a heretic against their will, and Wahhabism has been explicitly called out on this point by classical Sunni scholars. This problem is a relatively new one which could be eliminated by a return to tradition, not one which is typically characteristic of Islam and requires sweeping reform.

Ali's energy should be focused on Wahhabism, not Islam in general, and the fact that it isn't, and her political associations, make me leery of her intentions and motives.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Fatihah
Posts: 7,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 2:11:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 10:58:43 AM, YYW wrote:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali was on This Week (ABC) a few minutes ago, and Martha Raddatz was more or less incredibly rude to her. Granted, being rude is sort of the nature of how Martha Raddatz reports, but more or less Rattatz cut her off, interrupted her, talked over her and was extremely combative, and should not have taken George S.'s place this week.

Response: Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not nor was she ever, a learned Muslim. She states what she experienced and what her culture and political and religious figures have told her to base her view of Islam. Much of it is wahabbism. Not Islam. Until she is able to distinguish the two, along with the rest of much of the Western World, then she will always be looked at by Muslims as a deviant or dishonest person who has her personal interest at heart and not the truth.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 2:32:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 2:11:52 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/22/2015 10:58:43 AM, YYW wrote:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali was on This Week (ABC) a few minutes ago, and Martha Raddatz was more or less incredibly rude to her. Granted, being rude is sort of the nature of how Martha Raddatz reports, but more or less Rattatz cut her off, interrupted her, talked over her and was extremely combative, and should not have taken George S.'s place this week.

Response: Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not nor was she ever, a learned Muslim. She states what she experienced and what her culture and political and religious figures have told her to base her view of Islam. Much of it is wahabbism. Not Islam. Until she is able to distinguish the two, along with the rest of much of the Western World, then she will always be looked at by Muslims as a deviant or dishonest person who has her personal interest at heart and not the truth.

This seems to exemplify, to some degree, the point Envisage was making in Post #2.
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 2:33:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 2:11:52 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/22/2015 10:58:43 AM, YYW wrote:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali was on This Week (ABC) a few minutes ago, and Martha Raddatz was more or less incredibly rude to her. Granted, being rude is sort of the nature of how Martha Raddatz reports, but more or less Rattatz cut her off, interrupted her, talked over her and was extremely combative, and should not have taken George S.'s place this week.

Response: Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not nor was she ever, a learned Muslim. She states what she experienced and what her culture and political and religious figures have told her to base her view of Islam. Much of it is wahabbism. Not Islam. Until she is able to distinguish the two, along with the rest of much of the Western World, then she will always be looked at by Muslims as a deviant or dishonest person who has her personal interest at heart and not the truth.

I have thoughts about this post that will require a few paragraphs to type. I don't have the time to do that now, so I'll do it later.
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 2:34:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 2:32:31 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/22/2015 2:11:52 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/22/2015 10:58:43 AM, YYW wrote:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali was on This Week (ABC) a few minutes ago, and Martha Raddatz was more or less incredibly rude to her. Granted, being rude is sort of the nature of how Martha Raddatz reports, but more or less Rattatz cut her off, interrupted her, talked over her and was extremely combative, and should not have taken George S.'s place this week.

Response: Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not nor was she ever, a learned Muslim. She states what she experienced and what her culture and political and religious figures have told her to base her view of Islam. Much of it is wahabbism. Not Islam. Until she is able to distinguish the two, along with the rest of much of the Western World, then she will always be looked at by Muslims as a deviant or dishonest person who has her personal interest at heart and not the truth.

This seems to exemplify, to some degree, the point Envisage was making in Post #2.

DING DING DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 2:35:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 2:34:06 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/22/2015 2:32:31 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 3/22/2015 2:11:52 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/22/2015 10:58:43 AM, YYW wrote:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali was on This Week (ABC) a few minutes ago, and Martha Raddatz was more or less incredibly rude to her. Granted, being rude is sort of the nature of how Martha Raddatz reports, but more or less Rattatz cut her off, interrupted her, talked over her and was extremely combative, and should not have taken George S.'s place this week.

Response: Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not nor was she ever, a learned Muslim. She states what she experienced and what her culture and political and religious figures have told her to base her view of Islam. Much of it is wahabbism. Not Islam. Until she is able to distinguish the two, along with the rest of much of the Western World, then she will always be looked at by Muslims as a deviant or dishonest person who has her personal interest at heart and not the truth.

This seems to exemplify, to some degree, the point Envisage was making in Post #2.

DING DING DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!

Do I get a cookie now?
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 2:49:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 10:58:43 AM, YYW wrote:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali was on This Week (ABC) a few minutes ago, and Martha Raddatz was more or less incredibly rude to her. Granted, being rude is sort of the nature of how Martha Raddatz reports, but more or less Rattatz cut her off, interrupted her, talked over her and was extremely combative, and should not have taken George S.'s place this week.

For some reason many elements of the left despise her, even though she is an atheist feminist who is one of the strongest voices against Middle Eastern oppression of women. I really don't understand it.
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 3:18:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 2:49:30 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 3/22/2015 10:58:43 AM, YYW wrote:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali was on This Week (ABC) a few minutes ago, and Martha Raddatz was more or less incredibly rude to her. Granted, being rude is sort of the nature of how Martha Raddatz reports, but more or less Rattatz cut her off, interrupted her, talked over her and was extremely combative, and should not have taken George S.'s place this week.

For some reason many elements of the left despise her, even though she is an atheist feminist who is one of the strongest voices against Middle Eastern oppression of women. I really don't understand it.

They hate her because they think she's an Islamophobic bigot -a charge which I agree is utterly ridiculous.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 3:25:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 10:58:43 AM, YYW wrote:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali was on This Week (ABC) a few minutes ago, and Martha Raddatz was more or less incredibly rude to her. Granted, being rude is sort of the nature of how Martha Raddatz reports, but more or less Rattatz cut her off, interrupted her, talked over her and was extremely combative, and should not have taken George S.'s place this week.

You should debate Skep over Islamic tolerance. He thinks "In Islam, there isn't really dogma."
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 3:31:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 3:25:31 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/22/2015 10:58:43 AM, YYW wrote:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali was on This Week (ABC) a few minutes ago, and Martha Raddatz was more or less incredibly rude to her. Granted, being rude is sort of the nature of how Martha Raddatz reports, but more or less Rattatz cut her off, interrupted her, talked over her and was extremely combative, and should not have taken George S.'s place this week.

You should debate Skep over Islamic tolerance. He thinks "In Islam, there isn't really dogma."

I have. The issue between Skep and I is that he, like almost all Muslim clerics, is more concerned about what "true islam" is, or is not, so as to lay the foundation between distinguishing, for example, Wahhabism from true Islam. He accepts the basic idea that true and false versions of religions exist, and that we can identify them vis a vis hermeneutic interpretation.

I reject every premise there. I contend that religion is what its practitioners say it is, and that each practitioner who holds himself or herself out as a member of the faith can and therefore should be taken at his or her word because true and false versions of religion do not exist. I reject the idea that any human being can say, absolutely, that they have arrived at the final, perfect and unassailable theological truth because human perfection is an impossibility. There is no "true and false" religion, there is only religion, as it is practiced. The theologians are merely practitioners, and nothing more.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 3:36:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 2:11:52 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/22/2015 10:58:43 AM, YYW wrote:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali was on This Week (ABC) a few minutes ago, and Martha Raddatz was more or less incredibly rude to her. Granted, being rude is sort of the nature of how Martha Raddatz reports, but more or less Rattatz cut her off, interrupted her, talked over her and was extremely combative, and should not have taken George S.'s place this week.

Response: Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not nor was she ever, a learned Muslim. She states what she experienced and what her culture and political and religious figures have told her to base her view of Islam. Much of it is wahabbism. Not Islam. Until she is able to distinguish the two, along with the rest of much of the Western World, then she will always be looked at by Muslims as a deviant or dishonest person who has her personal interest at heart and not the truth.

This is true. Ayaan Hirsi Ali grew up in a country with terrible cultural practices towards women (female genital mutilation), political unrest, and rampant fanaticism. I don't blame her for being chafed, but I don't think that her views (especially about five years ago) are very accurate when it comes to Islam in a broader respect. She does seem to be mellowing out a bit in recent years, though I understand the mistrust towards her exhibited by many Muslims.

Plus people did threaten with all seriousness to kill her, and have killed her friends. That's a pretty traumatic experience, and I can see being a bit jaded after that.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 3:37:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 3:31:25 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/22/2015 3:25:31 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/22/2015 10:58:43 AM, YYW wrote:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali was on This Week (ABC) a few minutes ago, and Martha Raddatz was more or less incredibly rude to her. Granted, being rude is sort of the nature of how Martha Raddatz reports, but more or less Rattatz cut her off, interrupted her, talked over her and was extremely combative, and should not have taken George S.'s place this week.

You should debate Skep over Islamic tolerance. He thinks "In Islam, there isn't really dogma."

I have. The issue between Skep and I is that he, like almost all Muslim clerics, is more concerned about what "true islam" is, or is not, so as to lay the foundation between distinguishing, for example, Wahhabism from true Islam. He accepts the basic idea that true and false versions of religions exist, and that we can identify them vis a vis hermeneutic interpretation.

I reject every premise there. I contend that religion is what its practitioners say it is, and that each practitioner who holds himself or herself out as a member of the faith can and therefore should be taken at his or her word because true and false versions of religion do not exist. I reject the idea that any human being can say, absolutely, that they have arrived at the final, perfect and unassailable theological truth because human perfection is an impossibility. There is no "true and false" religion, there is only religion, as it is practiced. The theologians are merely practitioners, and nothing more.

Agreed. I'd also argue that Islamic scripture is not as flexible as Skep suggests it is. It calls for believers to wage war on non-believers. What can "believer" mean in that context, except for someone who accepts religious doctrines?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 3:43:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 3:31:25 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/22/2015 3:25:31 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/22/2015 10:58:43 AM, YYW wrote:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali was on This Week (ABC) a few minutes ago, and Martha Raddatz was more or less incredibly rude to her. Granted, being rude is sort of the nature of how Martha Raddatz reports, but more or less Rattatz cut her off, interrupted her, talked over her and was extremely combative, and should not have taken George S.'s place this week.

You should debate Skep over Islamic tolerance. He thinks "In Islam, there isn't really dogma."

I have. The issue between Skep and I is that he, like almost all Muslim clerics, is more concerned about what "true islam" is, or is not, so as to lay the foundation between distinguishing, for example, Wahhabism from true Islam. He accepts the basic idea that true and false versions of religions exist, and that we can identify them vis a vis hermeneutic interpretation.

I reject every premise there. I contend that religion is what its practitioners say it is, and that each practitioner who holds himself or herself out as a member of the faith can and therefore should be taken at his or her word because true and false versions of religion do not exist. I reject the idea that any human being can say, absolutely, that they have arrived at the final, perfect and unassailable theological truth because human perfection is an impossibility. There is no "true and false" religion, there is only religion, as it is practiced. The theologians are merely practitioners, and nothing more.

Well, from my perspective all religions are ultimately false, being an atheist, so I don't necessarily believe that. I believe that it's good for the followers of a Islam to believe that a 'true' version exists, and to remain true to classically valid tafsir. I think that Islam, practiced as it has classically been practiced, is much better than the Wahhabist mess that we have today. I don't make claims about faith or god, this is all politics to me, approached from the angle of what is better for the Middle East instead of the angle of what is good for the West.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 3:50:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 3:37:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/22/2015 3:31:25 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/22/2015 3:25:31 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/22/2015 10:58:43 AM, YYW wrote:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali was on This Week (ABC) a few minutes ago, and Martha Raddatz was more or less incredibly rude to her. Granted, being rude is sort of the nature of how Martha Raddatz reports, but more or less Rattatz cut her off, interrupted her, talked over her and was extremely combative, and should not have taken George S.'s place this week.

You should debate Skep over Islamic tolerance. He thinks "In Islam, there isn't really dogma."

I have. The issue between Skep and I is that he, like almost all Muslim clerics, is more concerned about what "true islam" is, or is not, so as to lay the foundation between distinguishing, for example, Wahhabism from true Islam. He accepts the basic idea that true and false versions of religions exist, and that we can identify them vis a vis hermeneutic interpretation.

I reject every premise there. I contend that religion is what its practitioners say it is, and that each practitioner who holds himself or herself out as a member of the faith can and therefore should be taken at his or her word because true and false versions of religion do not exist. I reject the idea that any human being can say, absolutely, that they have arrived at the final, perfect and unassailable theological truth because human perfection is an impossibility. There is no "true and false" religion, there is only religion, as it is practiced. The theologians are merely practitioners, and nothing more.

Agreed. I'd also argue that Islamic scripture is not as flexible as Skep suggests it is. It calls for believers to wage war on non-believers. What can "believer" mean in that context, except for someone who accepts religious doctrines?

I don't really take issue with scriptural flexibility; that's part of what hermeneutics is all about: reading into something the meaning that you want, and then saying that something means whatever you want it to mean. Once you reject a literal interpretation of something, or relegate synchronic meanings to the time in which they existed, you've got a pretty broad degree of freedom to interpret stuff as you would have it.

But really, what ultimately matters are the values (and the value structure) which you distill from scripture, because those values color your reading of everything else, whether you're intellectually willing to admit that or not (and that is true of everything that anyone reads at any time, ever). If you begin with hospitality, tolerance, community and peace, then you can read meaning into a text that commands the killing of infidels which directly contradicts the literal meaning and yet is still theologically valid. But, if you begin with intolerance, theological purity, literalism and certainty, then you're going to believe that a text that says "kill infidels" literally means "kill infidels" whoever they are.

That's why you get such wide cultural differences in Islamic practitioners. For example, Iranian Islam is profoundly different from Somali Islam. Iranian people are generally very warm, welcoming and inviting people -on an individual basis. They love to share their culture, and believe that it is God's command to show their guests the best that they can. So, a Muslim and a Christian can break bread at the same table, where one is the guest of the other, because Christianity has a similar command -but only if you begin from the principle that hospitality is part of God's commands.

That's why it gets so open to interpretation... because the particular values from which we begin vary widely from place to place. Whereas Skep would look at the holy texts of Islam, from a Western perspective, and read them charitably or read the charitable interpretations of others and declare that Islam is a religion of peace because the subjective meaning that he derived from it is peaceful, I say "Ok, well... instead of OUR subjective interpretations of stuff... let's look to what people who hold themselves out as Muslims actually do." And some Muslims are peaceful. Others are anything but. This is basically how I, and Sam Harris, view it.

But, then there are others like Resa Aslan who sort of do this wierd thing where he's like "Ok, well, the people who do all the bad stuff... they aren't really Muslims. But, let's not talk about that. Instead, let's talk about the Christians who do horrible things. Oh, and those Christians? They're the true Christians. But we're going to measure Islam and Christianity by a different standard, and whenever anyone says anything bad about Islam... I'm just going to ignore that and do something else."

I can say with confidence that Skep would be a FAR BETTER professor of religion at UC Riverside (an institution which disgraces itself by having Alsan on their payroll) than Aslan, but Skep and I approach the problem of Islam (and of religion much more generally) in totally different ways.
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 3:54:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 3:43:07 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/22/2015 3:31:25 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/22/2015 3:25:31 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/22/2015 10:58:43 AM, YYW wrote:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali was on This Week (ABC) a few minutes ago, and Martha Raddatz was more or less incredibly rude to her. Granted, being rude is sort of the nature of how Martha Raddatz reports, but more or less Rattatz cut her off, interrupted her, talked over her and was extremely combative, and should not have taken George S.'s place this week.

You should debate Skep over Islamic tolerance. He thinks "In Islam, there isn't really dogma."

I have. The issue between Skep and I is that he, like almost all Muslim clerics, is more concerned about what "true islam" is, or is not, so as to lay the foundation between distinguishing, for example, Wahhabism from true Islam. He accepts the basic idea that true and false versions of religions exist, and that we can identify them vis a vis hermeneutic interpretation.

I reject every premise there. I contend that religion is what its practitioners say it is, and that each practitioner who holds himself or herself out as a member of the faith can and therefore should be taken at his or her word because true and false versions of religion do not exist. I reject the idea that any human being can say, absolutely, that they have arrived at the final, perfect and unassailable theological truth because human perfection is an impossibility. There is no "true and false" religion, there is only religion, as it is practiced. The theologians are merely practitioners, and nothing more.

Well, from my perspective all religions are ultimately false, being an atheist, so I don't necessarily believe that.

Well... actually here you're using "false" in a different way than I was above. When I was talking about "falsity" above, I was referring to "falsity" as it pertains to consistency with what may count as a valid theological interpretation of sacred religious texts. Here, you're using "falsity" as it pertains to something being provably the case, which is talking about falsity on an objective -rather than a contextual- basis.

I believe that it's good for the followers of a Islam to believe that a 'true' version exists, and to remain true to classically valid tafsir.

I don't, because the idea that any interpretation of any religion could be true implies a human capacity that can not exist (either in Islam or Christianity).

I think that Islam, practiced as it has classically been practiced, is much better than the Wahhabist mess that we have today.

I know, but that doesn't mean that the version to which you refer is the "true" version, it only means that it was more popular at a given point in time.

I don't make claims about faith or god, this is all politics to me, approached from the angle of what is better for the Middle East instead of the angle of what is good for the West.

That's another conversation for another day haha
Fatihah
Posts: 7,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 5:05:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 3:36:15 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/22/2015 2:11:52 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/22/2015 10:58:43 AM, YYW wrote:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali was on This Week (ABC) a few minutes ago, and Martha Raddatz was more or less incredibly rude to her. Granted, being rude is sort of the nature of how Martha Raddatz reports, but more or less Rattatz cut her off, interrupted her, talked over her and was extremely combative, and should not have taken George S.'s place this week.

Response: Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not nor was she ever, a learned Muslim. She states what she experienced and what her culture and political and religious figures have told her to base her view of Islam. Much of it is wahabbism. Not Islam. Until she is able to distinguish the two, along with the rest of much of the Western World, then she will always be looked at by Muslims as a deviant or dishonest person who has her personal interest at heart and not the truth.

This is true. Ayaan Hirsi Ali grew up in a country with terrible cultural practices towards women (female genital mutilation), political unrest, and rampant fanaticism. I don't blame her for being chafed, but I don't think that her views (especially about five years ago) are very accurate when it comes to Islam in a broader respect. She does seem to be mellowing out a bit in recent years, though I understand the mistrust towards her exhibited by many Muslims.

Plus people did threaten with all seriousness to kill her, and have killed her friends. That's a pretty traumatic experience, and I can see being a bit jaded after that.

Response: I agree. I do not blame a person for having negative views of Islam. However. I contest those who portray such negativity as the actual true teachings of Islam when it is demonstrated from the Islamic scriptures that such is not the case.

People need to understand what is Islam, vs. What some regime or country leader says, and the cultural influences behind it. Islam gets a bad rep because unlike other religions which have different sects, None of them are the law of the land. Whereas Islam is the actual governmental law. So if the leader of the government is corrupt, then they push a corrupt interpretation of Islam. That means we should blame the leader and not the religion.
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2015 8:28:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 3:36:15 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/22/2015 2:11:52 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/22/2015 10:58:43 AM, YYW wrote:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali was on This Week (ABC) a few minutes ago, and Martha Raddatz was more or less incredibly rude to her. Granted, being rude is sort of the nature of how Martha Raddatz reports, but more or less Rattatz cut her off, interrupted her, talked over her and was extremely combative, and should not have taken George S.'s place this week.

Response: Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not nor was she ever, a learned Muslim. She states what she experienced and what her culture and political and religious figures have told her to base her view of Islam. Much of it is wahabbism. Not Islam. Until she is able to distinguish the two, along with the rest of much of the Western World, then she will always be looked at by Muslims as a deviant or dishonest person who has her personal interest at heart and not the truth.

This is true. Ayaan Hirsi Ali grew up in a country with terrible cultural practices towards women (female genital mutilation), political unrest, and rampant fanaticism. I don't blame her for being chafed, but I don't think that her views (especially about five years ago) are very accurate when it comes to Islam in a broader respect. She does seem to be mellowing out a bit in recent years, though I understand the mistrust towards her exhibited by many Muslims.

Plus people did threaten with all seriousness to kill her, and have killed her friends. That's a pretty traumatic experience, and I can see being a bit jaded after that.

No no no.....

The difference between you and Ali is that you focus on this illusion of "true islam" whereas Ali is concerned with what people who hold themselves out as Muslims do in the name of Islam. Fatihah's comments are warrantless.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 1:11:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/22/2015 8:28:32 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/22/2015 3:36:15 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/22/2015 2:11:52 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/22/2015 10:58:43 AM, YYW wrote:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali was on This Week (ABC) a few minutes ago, and Martha Raddatz was more or less incredibly rude to her. Granted, being rude is sort of the nature of how Martha Raddatz reports, but more or less Rattatz cut her off, interrupted her, talked over her and was extremely combative, and should not have taken George S.'s place this week.

Response: Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not nor was she ever, a learned Muslim. She states what she experienced and what her culture and political and religious figures have told her to base her view of Islam. Much of it is wahabbism. Not Islam. Until she is able to distinguish the two, along with the rest of much of the Western World, then she will always be looked at by Muslims as a deviant or dishonest person who has her personal interest at heart and not the truth.

This is true. Ayaan Hirsi Ali grew up in a country with terrible cultural practices towards women (female genital mutilation), political unrest, and rampant fanaticism. I don't blame her for being chafed, but I don't think that her views (especially about five years ago) are very accurate when it comes to Islam in a broader respect. She does seem to be mellowing out a bit in recent years, though I understand the mistrust towards her exhibited by many Muslims.

Plus people did threaten with all seriousness to kill her, and have killed her friends. That's a pretty traumatic experience, and I can see being a bit jaded after that.

No no no.....

The difference between you and Ali is that you focus on this illusion of "true islam" whereas Ali is concerned with what people who hold themselves out as Muslims do in the name of Islam. Fatihah's comments are warrantless.

History has immense utility because it is a study in alternatives. When studying Islamic history, it becomes obvious very quickly that Islam is not one unchangeable thing, that it has sponsored many varied schools of thought throughout the ages. Saying 'hey, things worked better when we did it like this, can we go back to that?' isn't warrantless in any sense, and that's essentially what people say when they mention 'true Islam'. It is a protest over the fact that a very young strain of Islam, which takes it upon itself to declare its fellow believers to be heretics, is cast as 'Islam' by the West. Muslims are well aware that other Muslims are doing this, and it upsets them greatly. It also upsets them when the vast array of historical alternatives of which they are aware are treated not only as if they cannot exist again, but as if they never existed in the first place. Pretending that alternatives to radicalism which are distinctly Islamic in nature cannot be embraced is completely counterproductive to any real pursuit of long-term stability in the Middle East, as is the insistence that, in order for Islam to survive, it must submit to Western influence. Both of these things are simply not true.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2015 1:43:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/23/2015 1:11:29 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/22/2015 8:28:32 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/22/2015 3:36:15 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/22/2015 2:11:52 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 3/22/2015 10:58:43 AM, YYW wrote:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali was on This Week (ABC) a few minutes ago, and Martha Raddatz was more or less incredibly rude to her. Granted, being rude is sort of the nature of how Martha Raddatz reports, but more or less Rattatz cut her off, interrupted her, talked over her and was extremely combative, and should not have taken George S.'s place this week.

Response: Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not nor was she ever, a learned Muslim. She states what she experienced and what her culture and political and religious figures have told her to base her view of Islam. Much of it is wahabbism. Not Islam. Until she is able to distinguish the two, along with the rest of much of the Western World, then she will always be looked at by Muslims as a deviant or dishonest person who has her personal interest at heart and not the truth.

This is true. Ayaan Hirsi Ali grew up in a country with terrible cultural practices towards women (female genital mutilation), political unrest, and rampant fanaticism. I don't blame her for being chafed, but I don't think that her views (especially about five years ago) are very accurate when it comes to Islam in a broader respect. She does seem to be mellowing out a bit in recent years, though I understand the mistrust towards her exhibited by many Muslims.

Plus people did threaten with all seriousness to kill her, and have killed her friends. That's a pretty traumatic experience, and I can see being a bit jaded after that.

No no no.....

The difference between you and Ali is that you focus on this illusion of "true islam" whereas Ali is concerned with what people who hold themselves out as Muslims do in the name of Islam. Fatihah's comments are warrantless.

History has immense utility because it is a study in alternatives. When studying Islamic history, it becomes obvious very quickly that Islam is not one unchangeable thing, that it has sponsored many varied schools of thought throughout the ages. Saying 'hey, things worked better when we did it like this, can we go back to that?' isn't warrantless in any sense, and that's essentially what people say when they mention 'true Islam'. It is a protest over the fact that a very young strain of Islam, which takes it upon itself to declare its fellow believers to be heretics, is cast as 'Islam' by the West. Muslims are well aware that other Muslims are doing this, and it upsets them greatly. It also upsets them when the vast array of historical alternatives of which they are aware are treated not only as if they cannot exist again, but as if they never existed in the first place. Pretending that alternatives to radicalism which are distinctly Islamic in nature cannot be embraced is completely counterproductive to any real pursuit of long-term stability in the Middle East, as is the insistence that, in order for Islam to survive, it must submit to Western influence. Both of these things are simply not true.

And yet, it still asks a different question than I am...